Moon Landings

Bazza · February 6, 2005

With all the so called technical know-how surly they could get a man up there.
or can they

Been there done that doesn't cut it for me as they cant know everything from a couple of samples of rock or some coloured sand........you can get that from the isle of wight.

←

dont think there is much emphasis on the human getting there as they have robots and machines that can do the same job, without the risk of life, supposidly they have allready done it, (but thats another story to be doubted)

cant see that there is much more to find out, if they were to discover oil on the moon it would be impossible to get it back, if you think about it, that they havent discovered the possibiltys of everyplace on earth yet

Scorpion · February 6, 2005

If there was oil up there they would find a way to get it back.

Anyway it wouldn't belong to us coz the yanks would claim it was theirs.

Still fake though,no-one has been to the moon for a walkabout. :)

norkep · February 6, 2005

There was a doc about this recently, one undisputable piece of evidence that they went was that an experiment they left there in 69 is still running and sending back data via an indepenant company.

The doc also did an experiment about other facts like the way the flag was waving in an non-air environment, was that the whole flag moved due to the movement of the pole rather than the air moving the flag.

I'd say that we have been to the moon.

Wayne3940 · February 6, 2005

Another thing is because of the race and the cold war the Russkies would know if they were lying and expose them. Its common thought that if we needed to live on the moon right now all the tech stuff exists. The only thing holding us back is there isn't enough of an advantage to doing so yet and therefore no real driving force to do so.

Bazza · February 6, 2005

A total of 840 pounds of rocks and dust were brought back by the astronauts. The thousands of scientists around the world who have studied the Apollo samples agree: They could not have come from Earth.

Unlike Earth rocks, the lunar samples are totally devoid of water, even within their crystal structures. Their chemical compositions, in particular the ratio of iron and manganese, set them apart from any of Earth’s native rocks. They are extraordinarily ancient, some almost as old as the solar system. Perhaps, most importantly, their surfaces show the effects of bombardment by high-speed micrometeorites and subatomic particles from the solar wind—neither of which can affect terrestrial rocks because our atmosphere screens them out. These so-called "zap pits" would have also been wiped out had the rocks fallen to Earth as lunar meteorites; the tremendous heat generated by their high-velocity passage through our atmosphere would have erased any such surface features. The Apollo samples must have been brought back from the Moon

Brettster · February 6, 2005

I alway was LED to belive the moon was created from a chuck of earth blasted outt from an impact during the earths creation

so wouldnt it be made from the same stuff as earth?

Bazza · February 6, 2005

and :

the race was between the usa and russia

russia had allready beaten the usa to have the first person in space

usa then landed on the moon

they then had effectively won

but they then repeated sending men up

over 5 more missions another ten men went up

why would they do that if they had faked the first

they had nothing to win anymore

and.........why has it taken over 30 years to question the event

Wosket · February 6, 2005

ive got a whole load of stuff relating to this in a binder somewhere, will have to dig it out and post some snippets.

flotsam · February 7, 2005

"The World's Greatest Conspiracys" programme shows that the pictures were faked, if not the whole trip.

There are two pictures which are supposed to be a couple of kilometres apart, yet the programme superimposed one picture on the other and the only differences were the props in the foreground.

Without any atmosphere, the flag appears to flutter.

Cross hairs supposedly etched onto the camera's optics show some were obscured by the props in the photos.

Also the shadows in the pictures are divergent when the only source of light was the Sun which is 93m miles away. Also pictures show the astronauts well lit even in shadows.

Also the rocket motors were too quiet on descent.

There was no dust on the LIM foot pads and no crater where the rocket motors would have been blasting.

The programme clams that the Russians never went to the Moon because the radiation outside the Earth's magnetic field is lethal.

The profits from this would have been huge.

chib1177 · February 7, 2005

"The World's Greatest Conspiracys"

the clue is in the title of the programme methinks, a program with a name like this is always going to look for any reason to call into question the moon landings or anything connected to it. Just think many people are making a good living and selling lots of books by calling into question anything the us govt does.

Fidgits · February 7, 2005

My opinion is:

The first moon landing was faked - the americans were so worried about the Russians getting there first, they didnt actually land in the first case.

However, the subsequent landings were actually true..

I also think the Apollo 13 disaster was faked too - people had lost interest in NASA space exploration, and im sorry, but the actual story played out like a hollywood movie (almost as much as the hollywood movie), it just strikes me as a wonderful way to regain interest, and also an excuse to shut down a very expensive process of landing people on the moon...

Rillo · February 7, 2005

my 2 pence worth....

The landings took place but the photos were faked........

When they got back they discovered the pictures from the chest cameras were so poor that they couldn't be released. Therefore they recreated photos for the media. Not convinced???? Then just compare the initial terrible quality video of the first step with the subsequent glorious shots of the astronauts bouncing about the place....

Wosket · February 7, 2005

my 2 pence worth....
The landings took place but the photos were faked........

When they got back they discovered the pictures from the chest cameras were so poor that they couldn't be released. Therefore they recreated photos for the media. Not convinced???? Then just compare the initial terrible quality video of the first step with the subsequent glorious shots of the astronauts bouncing about the place....

←

video and photography are two different types of media anyway so you cant compare quality between the two.